About your Search

20120901
20120930
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
flag and putted it up. it was the libyan security forces who let us down in benghazi when ambassador stevens was killed. i don't think it's appropriate to somehow blame the state department or the white house for this. and now obviously, we have to do everything we can to protect our people. as grow know president obama got on the phone with the president of egypt after the embassy was attacked and basically said you have to do a better job. there's is my paraphrasing what i read about the conversation in the newspaper. you have to did a better job and protect our embarrass sip. that's the right message. i think it's tined time for the americans to stand time. it's a tough time for the diplomats. they -- >> host: georgia is on the live eric on the line for democrats. hey. >> caller: yeah. i have two comments. thanks for taking my call. first of all, the g.o.p. often says there's a libbial media. that can't be phut from the truth. all media is corporate owned. when you're a tv person, all you're doing is what your boss is what you are doing. you are an employee owned by a rich people
. >> we hear from you fully about your -- benghazi right now and a couple of specifics i want to ask you. was there ever any discussion, after the benghazi attack, of putting marines at the compound in benghazi to help secure it? and what is your assessment and analysis of al qaeda and al qaeda affiliates or inspired organizations there, their ability to assemble and generate an attack capability of this sort very rapidly, and for the united states to openly have no sense that it needed to provide the security to meet that potential threat? what does it say to you about al qaeda related groups in that region? >> okay. first of all with regards to benghazi, what we, what we responded to was a request to provide a f.a.s.t. team that would go into tripoli and try to provide additional security there and we responded to that and did that. at that point, for all intents and purposes, benghazi had been, you know, pretty much unoccupied by any of the diplomatic and, other security personnel that were there. so, the main focus then was on tripoli and the embassy in tripoli and that's what we res
today in benghazi, libya. the reports are that as many as 30,000 libyans took to the streets in benghazi, the city where ambassador chris stevens and three of his colleagues were tragically murdered ten days ago ago. these demonstrators marched peacefully to the gates of the compound of ansar al sharia. the militia that was responsible for the attack that killed ambassador stevens and his colleagues. the demonstrators conducted themselves peacefully. they carried signs according to media reports that read, "the ambassador was libya's friend. no, no to militias." and when these brave libyans arrived at the gates of the compound, they told the militia that they and their violent extremist agenda are not welcome in the new libya. do we want to send the message tonight as the people of libya told the militants no, that we will then tell the people of libya, we don't want to have anything to do with you we won't assist you we won't give you what you need to establish a democratic and free society? because of what happened in benghazi today somewhere chris stevens is smiling. he's smiling bec
for the state department and for her country. we've seen that heavy assault on our post in benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. we've seen rage and violence directed at american embassies over an awful internet video that we have nothing to do with. it is hard for the american people to make sense of that because it is senseless and it is totally unacceptable. the people of egypt, libya, yemen and tunisia did not trade the tyranny of the tape trader for the tyranny of a mob. reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries need to do everything they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts. and we will, under the president's leadership, keep taking steps to protect our personnel around the world. there will be more difficult days ahead, but it is important that we don't lose sight of the fundamental facts that america must keep leading the world. we owe it to those four men to continue the long, hard work of diplomacy. i am enormously proud of the men and women of the state department. i am proud of all those across our government, c
.s. consulate in benghazi, the torture and killing of our ambassador, the deaths of three american patriots and the following attacks and deaths involving marines in afghanistan. americans are watching a conflagration of an estimated half million jihadists and over 30 countries burning portraits of our presidents and american flags and threatening attacks upon our consulates and embassies while shouting death to america. no, mr. president, my colleagues, the war against terrorism is not over. now we find out ten days later that al qaeda was involved in a planned attack in benghazi, dangerous poe tests continue in pakistan and throughout the muslim world. this morning, the commandant of our marine corps informed the capitol hill marines there are 153 marine units at the ready to protect u.s. consulates and embassies at the direction of the state department. they should be deployed. and he believed that the current danger may well last decades. the sobering truth hurts. was there actionable intelligence prior to this attack, and if there was not, why not? especially given recent especially gi
at the benghazi consulate?" you pick up "the new york times" and you get a blow-by-blow description of what supposedly went o. so it was like pulling teeth to get information yesterday. a lot of senators were frustrated. and you pick up major newspapers in the country and you find details not shared with you. and one of the things i'm worried about is we're trying to find out who committed these terrible acts of terrorism -- and they were acts of terrorism, not a spontaneous riot -- i said, what is the game plan? will they be held as enemy exatents, are they going to be held as common criminals? will they be prosecuted in libya? will they be brought back to the united states? do you have to read them their miranda rights? really absolutely not a whole lot of information. but at the end of the day, it was a lost opportunity i think to inform the congress. can we now move to the rand paul amendment? mr. mccain: mr. president, i'd like to take what remaining time we have in order to discuss the paul amendment. and i'd like to begin by asking insertion in the -- in the "congressional record" a
organizations -- a ship from terrorist organizations towards a mob. we have seen it in bank as a -- benghazi where despite a large security presence, a u.s. ambassador was killed. this suggests we are moving into a world that will be more and more difficult to continue to depend on governments protecting our diplomats because the skit -- the investments required to deal with 400 people, they have huge implications for the number of embassies he can run. >> it will have to remain for the host government. this is an increased threat. that does not reduce the other threats -- the attempt on the life of our ambassador in benghazi. this does that mean other threats are being reduced. there is no way of avoiding the prime responsibility of being host nation. there are many circumstances in which host nations fully lived up to these responsibilities. what we are hearing about your is the exception to that. across the middle east, host nations often do an outstanding job in -- and their police forces often do a great job protecting foreign embassies. where they fall down than to that task, then we h
. >> in the wake of the benghazi, that the pentagon and state department both made statements involving whether or not there were marines at the facility. there were not to when the state department regarding the presence of security firms of the compound. why was there such confusion? and is the white house or anyone conducting an internal investigation as to what went wrong? >> well, there is an ongoing investigation into what happened the magazine is being led by the fbi, and -- >> the criminal acts. obviously it wasn't national-security. that is along the lines of what was wrong, what the best fishing could have done better. >> at the cow would refer you for questions about security about -- at the beth because the facility and broadly speaking in a diplomatic facility consulates and embassies around the world to the state department. in terms of the statements that were corrected by defense our state, i would refer you to those departments. you know, from our perspective we got out to you the information that we had as soon as we had it, and it was available. our assessment of what happene
the ongoing turmoil in the middle east. here's a look. >> the attacks on the civilians in benghazi were attacks on america. we are grateful for the assistance we have received from the libyan government, and from the libyan people. there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice. i also appreciate that in recent days the leaders of other countries in the region, including egypt, tunisia, and yemen have taken steps to secure our diplomatic securities. and so have religious authorities around the globe. but understand the attacks of the last two weeks are not simply an assault on america, there are also an aat all times on the ideals upon which the united nations was founded. the notion that people can resolve their differences peacefully. that the diplomacy can take the place of war. that interdependent world all of us have a stake in working toward greater opportunity and security for our citizens. if we are serious about upholding the ideals, it will not be enough to put more guards in front of an embassy or put out statemen
't in benghazi. the day before chris stevens was. but, again, hindsight is wonderful. thank you for the question on reconciliation. again, i touched on it, but i was getting the evil stare from ashley and jessica. i mean, it was just stereo. yeah, there does have to be a political settlement, but what it can't be if it's going to be durable in the afghan context is a settlement between the u.s. and the taliban. the taliban will use that to delegitimize an afghan government, you know? our deal wasn't with these puppets, our deal was with the puppetmasters. and it will actually, i think, lessen the prospects for a stable outcome. i think what we have to do as we were doing during my time and i know we're doing now is an intense, quiet set of discussions with the afghan government, you know? okay, who's, who's navy vulnerable, how can we work this, who can we talk to, who can do what? this is a very important topic for a serious discussion trilaterally, as you point out. pakistanis play a major role here, and as they have now learned, a lot of those guys they have been giving safe harbor to happen
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)